In terminal medical cases, doctors often deal with patients who move through “stages” that begin with denial. These so-called Kübler-Ross stages can be a long road toward acceptance. A weird form of Kübler-Ross seems to have taken hold of the media. Rather than refusing to accept indicators of impending death, many journalists and analysts seem incapable of accepting signs that the Trump presidency could survive.

That painful process was more evident Tuesday night when the Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert Mueller told the White House last month that Trump was not considered a “target” but only a “subject” of the investigation. After a year of being assured that “bombshell” developments and “smoking gun” evidence was sealing the criminal case against Trump, the dissonance was too great for many who refuse to accept the obvious meaning of this disclosure.

The U.S. Attorney’s manual defines a “subject” as a “person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.” It is a designation that can change but it is also a meaningful description of the current status of an individual. Mueller at this time apparently does not believe Trump meets the definition of a target or a “person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” That would have been less notable when Mueller was appointed in 2017 than it is now, after more than a year, dozens of criminal counts, hundreds of thousands of documents, and a bevy of cooperating witnesses.

That Mueller does not believe there is “substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime” would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition. However, there has been a disturbing lack of objectivity in the coverage of this investigation from the start. Throughout it, some of us have cautioned that the criminal case against Trump was far weaker than media suggested. Fired FBI Director James Comey himself told Congress that Trump was not a target of his investigation. Indeed, Trump was reportedly upset with Comey largely because Comey would not say that publicly.

When Trump fired Comey, I supported the call for a special counsel, and I still support Mueller in completing his investigation. However, the case of criminal conduct by Trump has not materially improved over the last year. Last October, Mueller brought the first indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafortand his deputy, Richard Gates. Notably, none of the indictments were linked to the campaign, let alone Trump. When that obvious point was raised, we were told that it meant nothing and Mueller was likely holding back the really damaging indictments while pressuring Trump aides. Commentators continue to announce “bombshell” disclosures against Trump on a daily basis, with experts alleging clear cases for treason to obstruction to witness tampering and other crimes.

Then, in November, came the disclosure of plea agreements with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. However, these pleas were for making individual false statements to federal investigators. Neither the charges nor the narratives in the filings tied Trump or his campaign to any criminal act. Later indictments involving lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and internet operator Richard Pinedo involved a false statement and a single count of identity fraud, again unrelated to Trump or his campaign. Nevertheless, commentators insisted Mueller was just laying the groundwork for his major filing.

In February, Mueller handed down indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for election-related crimes, from hacking to identity fraud. Not only did these charges not implicate Trump or his campaign, but the filing expressly stated that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly engaged Russians in these efforts. Now, Mueller reportedly has said he does not consider Trump a “target” of the criminal investigation. Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target.

Still, some analysts immediately denied that Mueller’s disclosure was anything but bad news for Trump. On CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin insisted that “being a ‘subject’ is a very serious thing” and a “very significant designation” because it is clear “the FBI is investigating the president.” Of course, the only lower designation in a criminal investigation would be “witness.” Moreover, it was confirmed last year that Trump was being investigated.

The obvious point is that, after months of investigating Trump, Mueller still does not have sufficient evidence to make him a “target.” True, a “subject” can become a “target” and a “target” can then become a “defendant,” but so can a “witness.” Clearly, Trump is a subject since he was the subject of the election itself and directly involved in the underlying matters under investigation. What is new is that Mueller confirmed Trump’s status has not changed.

Later, CNN analyst John Dean declared that an assurance Trump is not a target “does not mean a whole lot.” Dean’s rationale was that a president “cannot be indicted,” so Mueller would never have listed him as a target, regardless of the evidence. First and foremost, some of us believe a president can be indicted in office. While there is disagreement, including within the Justice Department and past independent counsels, the Supreme Court has never accepted such immunity from indictment.

More important, even if true, such immunity would not mean Mueller would declare Trump is not a target. Rather, Trump would remain a target as an unindicted co-conspirator or simply an unindicted person pending impeachment. Once impeached, he still could be indicted. Thus, it would be both illogical and unethical for Mueller to say Trump is not a target when he was pursuing possible charges, either as an unindicted co-conspirator or a post-impeachment defendant.

CNN analyst Philip Mudd was not satisfied with the “soft” depictions of the Mueller disclosure and declared that it was devastating news that Mueller was now investigating Trump and that, if Trump were declared a subject, “I would wet my pants.” CNN analyst Ryan Lizza went even further, suggesting that this was all a sham and Mueller is playing “chess to get the president into an interview.” Of course, such a bait-and-switch would be unethical in making false representations to the president’s counsel if Trump is already considered a target.

This continued refusal to acknowledge positive developments for Trump is a disturbing pathology. Just because Trump is a subject of investigation does not mean he cannot become a target. Moreover, Mueller as expected has indicated he will prepare a report on his investigation. This still is a positive development for Trump. It shows that Trump’s status has not materially changed but neither has the status of much of the coverage. Many media commentators clearly are stuck on denial and are a long way from acceptance in dealing with the legal status of Donald Trump

__________________________________________________

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

My theory is that the establishment branches in both the Democrat and Republican parties want this investigation to go on through the end of Trump's presidency, whether 4 or 8 years. It is a deliberate false distraction to draw all investigation and media coverage away from the real corruption that SHOULD be investigated on the Hillary Clinton side of the campaign, where all the evidence actually leads.It has the dual purpose of 1) obstructing or limiting Trump's reforms that move the nation back toward nationalism and sovereignty, and away from being pulled against the people's will into globalism.and 2) To prevent full investigation and public disclosure of precisely how corrupt and nation-threatening Hillary Clinton and her globalist backers are, so they can choose another candidate in 4 or 8 years who will succeed in crushing U.S. sovereignty where Frau Clinton failed in 2016 (and in 2008).

The purpose of the Trump investigation is to cripple Trump, and to run out the clock during his presidency, to turn all the media scorn on Trump and away from them, to prevent exposure of the global elites working the puppet strings, and make the nation that much weaker and easier to crush by their globalist plans in 4 or 8 years.

That's the consensus of what I'm hearing. That these memos pretty much prove there was no Trump collusion with the Russians. (Even as the Democrat leadership and liberal media continue to use it as a front, to hide that ALL they evidence leads to the Hillary campaign/Fusion GPS/The Clinton Foundation/33,000 deleted emails/Hillary's security-compromising illegal private e-mail server.

But the media, as long as they can, will continue to demonize Trump and front that false narrative, even as they fly cover for and protect Hillary Clinton, despite the overwhelming evidence against her.

#1225565
- Sun Apr 22 201811:14 PMRe: When Will the Media Accept That Trump Is Not a Criminal Target?
[Re: Wonder Boy]

Matter-eater Man
Fair Play!
Registered: Sat Jun 07 2003
Posts: 14010

I don't see how Comey 's memos prove there was no collusion. Looks like the same crowd that says he's a liar (unless it's about Clinton) is also making this claim. Personally while I don't think Comey made good decisions I do think he's hell a lot more truthful than Spanky. It's sad how to many of you allow Trump to just accuse people of crimes like he does. That is on you

Regardless, the 7 Comey memos (which still are not disclosed to the public, and I think Deven Nunes is the only one on the record who had fully read them, unredacted, which means even the Democrats who haave accused Trump of "collusion" (whatever non-crime that entails, collusion is not a proseccutaable crime). While not fully disclosed publicly, Comey acknowledges details that Trump has not coordinated with the Russians, and the prosecution should be winding down to a close at this point.

And AGAIN, there is plenty of evidence of 1) the Hillary Clinton campaign speaking directly with Russian agents in their commissioned "Russia Dossier" through former British agent Christopher Steele. And how that dossier was used to smear Trump with allegations that even Comey and McCabe described as "salacious" and "unreliable". Even as they used it as the core "evidence" to request a FISA surveillance on Carter Page and other Trump campaign staffers. FOUR TIMES! Not to mention criminal actions that warrant prosecution of Hillary Clinton and her staff for the 2) Uranium One deal selling 20% of U.S. uranium in exchange for donations and huge speaking fees for both Bill and Hillary. And 3) the "pay-to-play" receipt of hundreds of millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation, where they would then contact the State Department and give foreign donors access to State Department officials, during Hillary Clinton's four years as secretary of state.And4) Hillary Clinton and her staffers erasing 33,000 e-mails, and bleach-bit wiping the momory of their computer hard-drives, and smashing ceveral cel-phones with a hammer to hide the self-incriminating evidence of 1), 2), and 3) above. >>>>AFTER<<<<< all these were subpoenaed as evidence by FBI, DOJ and Congress investigators.WHY WERE PAUL MANAFORT, MICHAEL FLYNN, and CARTER PAGE SUBJECT TO MIDNIGHT RAIDS, who DIDN'T DESTROY EVIDENCE, WHILE HILLARY CLINTON, CHERYL MILLS, HUMA ABEDIN AND JENNIFER PALMIERI WERE NOT SUBJECT TO SIMILAR RAIDS, WHO >>>DID DESTROY EVIDENCE?

Clearly the FBI and DOJ were heavily invested in exonerating Hillary, and in lynching Trump and his staff any way they could. As is abundantly clear in the internal messages and actions of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein (and his wife who received an over $500,000 through Hillary Clinton operative McAuliffe), Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (whose wife worked for Fusion GPS and fed false information directly to the FBI and DOJ through her husband's inside status), Andrew Weissman (who attended Hillary Clinton's election night victory party, that urned defeat, and praised acting AG Sally Yates for her defiance of Trump's immigration restrictions). And of course Robert Meuller, who stacked his "neutral" special investigation with Democrats, 13 of 17, and 11 of 17 are known Democrat donors, some in the tens of thousands.

and 5) the REAL treason, Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server, that compromised U.S. national intelligence every day Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, leaving every internal communication at the highest level with Pentagon, State Department and White House officials, ripe for the hacking by the Russians and Chinese, giving them knowledge in real time the speed of communication and internal strategy of every move our military and executive leadership made. If that's not treason, I don't know what is. Whether you term it as the federally prosecutable "gross negligence" or as Comey attempted to soften it in 2016 to let Hillary off the hook, "carelessness". By either name, it is treason.

All this evidence is ripe for the prosecution of Hillary.But instead the smokescreen of alleged "collusion" by Trump, without a shred of evidence, goes on. And the liberal media feeds the lie by focusing only on the false allegations against Trump.

President Trump late Thursday night trumpeted the release of a series of memos written by former FBI Director James Comey, claiming they exonerated him of allegations that he obstructed justice and colluded with Russia.

"James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION," Trump tweeted. "Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?"

Comey's memos have become a flashpoint in an increasingly bitter partisan fight on Capitol Hill tied to whether Trump tried to obstruct justice in the ongoing probe into possible ties between his campaign and Russia.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) was forced to hand over the memos to Congress on Thursday or face a subpoena from House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). He and other Republicans, including Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have been investigating alleged anti-Trump bias at the DOJ in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Following the release of the memos, which mostly contained details already known to the public thanks to Comey's testimony on Capitol Hill and leaked excerpts from his autobiography, the three Republicans released a statement saying the memos provided clear evidence there was no obstruction of justice.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, meanwhile, claimed they “provide strong corroborating evidence of everything [Comey] said about President Trump” and show a “blatant effort to deny justice.”

In his tweet, Trump was also apparently referring to the fact that Comey had provided one unclassified memo to a friend [A college professor at Columbia University] who then gave it [leaked the confidential FBI information] to The New York Times. Comey did so in order to trigger the appointment of a special counsel in the Russia probe.

Trump has repeatedly railed against the probe, frequently referring to it as a "witch hunt." He has also stepped up his attacks on Comey in recent days, as the ex-FBI director mounts a media blitz in order to promote his new book.

Republicans said the memos showed that the "cloud" Trump wanted lifted wasn’t Russian interference in the 2016 election, but instead the more salacious allegations in the dossier, which included claims that Russians had tapes of him with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013.

"There were no prostitutes. There were never prostitutes," Comey quoted Trump as telling him in one memo dated April 19.

And that Comey is out there citing confidential memos to sell his book while travelling across the country promoting it. Even as Demcorats and "Deep State" pro-Democrat officials in the FBI and DOJ suppress release of Comey's unredacted memos. To hide what is truly in them, the unknown ambiguity feeding Comey and the Democrats' narrative.

But bottom line, there's no "there" there in the memos. Even in the case of prosecuting Michael Flynn, Trump only asks if it's necessary to prosecute him, and if it's possible to not pursue that.

Comey has expressed elsewhere that he was intimidated by Trump. The 6' 6" director of the FBI, veteran of a thousand battles, was intimidated by Trump?!? Please. He also described how Trump was "like a mob boss", and how Trump "embraced me the first time we met" and how Comey tried to resist too close of contact." Laura Ingraham said "what guy uses the words 'we embraced'" and mocked Comey's book quote as "like something out of a Harlequin romance novel."

Lou Dobbs in similarly quoting Comey writing of his every uncomfortable and intimidated moment with Trump said: "This guy must be the most delicate daffodil at the FBI!"

In any case, there's nothing there to back a Russia collusion allegation.

I found a link for an ABC News write-up on the memos, that shows the actual memos you can scroll through (in redacted form, with parts blacked out. AGAIN: Rep Devin Nunes says he's the only one who has gone to where the records are kept and read them in unredacted form.)

The memos are addressed to Assistant FBI director Andrew McCabe (recently fired by Jeff Sessions, on recommendation of the FBI Inspector General and the FBI's internal affairs reports), and James A. Baker (former General Counsel for the FBI, obviously re-assigned due to scandal, as are Strzok, Page and others), and James Rybicki (Comey's former chief of staff until he was forced to leave).All central players of Comey's "Deep State" cabal, out to rig the exoneration of Hillary Clinton, and to rig the lynching of Donald Trump.

I've noticed how all the Wikipedia articles on the Trump investigation euphemize, selectively omit, and mask the corruption on the Democrat side, and these are no exception. Many of the things I can barely pick up on in Wikipedia's soft-pedaling have only become clear in reading the same information on Conservapedia and other sources. The liberal media, Deep State investigators, liberal academics, and Wikipedia all report the story in the most favorable possible light for the Democrats, and do their damnedest not to cite evidence of any Deep State bias of FBI and DOJ officials. All part of the Deep State conspiracy.

#1225570
- Mon Apr 23 201808:42 PMRe: When Will the Media Accept That Trump Is Not a Criminal Target?
[Re: Wonder Boy]

Matter-eater Man
Fair Play!
Registered: Sat Jun 07 2003
Posts: 14010

Spanky is the nickname from his Stormy adventure. It's easier than constantly typing out "lying fat lump of shit". See I do try to give rump the respect he's earned, lol. And when you can't even call Hannity's huge conflict of interest with not disclosing his ties to Cohen I have zero time for your all to familiar pattern of not just giving a partisan free pass to your guy but than going into generic attacks on the media, "deep state" or whatever entity isn't spouting Trump propaganda. Both Trump and Hannity should be both upset at Cohen for what he did. Instead he's described as a good man and a friend by them. Lots of liars and zero ethics. Yuck

Since Hannity never officially employed Michael Cohen as an attorney (in Hannity's own words, he never paid Cohen or receive an invoice for legal services from him) there is nothing for Hannity to disclose.

As much as there is anything to disclose, Hannity has done so. Unlike the incestuous relationships between the liberal media and the Obama's and Clintons that Hannity exposed in the link above. Shephanopoulos as one example, is not a "neutral" reporter, he was Bill Clinton's communications director, and still does the bidding of the Clintons, disguised as an objective journalist.